Philip Thomas has followed the case, but no report yet on the argument at his blog.
I think caps are an excessively blunt instrument for reform; the $500K med-mal cap is especially hard to justify, as few people can mess you up like a doctor can. But that's a policy question; I am a bit skeptical whether the caps are *unconstitutional*.
... I have a bizarre hypo on the constitutional issue at NMC's blog.
Leaving aside the Eighth Amendment and its Miss. counterpart, would a tort *plaintiff* be denied any right if the Legislature decreed that noneconomic damages were to be compensated by public whipping, not by cash?Really, I don't know where I get these ideas. Now, where did I put my copy of Juliette?
... Philip has a good post up on what he saw at the argument. I continue to wonder why corporations think it's a good idea to send someone from NYC or Chicago or L.A. to argue in appellate court in Mississippi. Then again, the plaintiff had some guy from D.C. carrying the bulk of her argument, so go figure. (Randy Wallace comments at Philip's post that the yankees were indeed prone to try to talk over the justices. Not how we do it in the Southland, gentlemen.)